A rchive Date
[ 17-11-2001 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ Political Science ]
|
[Man is born free: yet everywhere he's in chains
by Notlimah Hsineved
20/04/2021
A commonly held philosophical assumption or belief or position by many is that men did at one period in time exist in some idyllic state wherein they were absolutely free; and of these, myths evolve and develop to become self-perpetuating truths - forever begging the question which preceedes it: upon what basis is Truth derived?
One such, as envisioned or embedded in the bibilcal garden of Eden, presupposes a time and place of no fixed location or address - anywhere within any known cosmos, regardless of how we attempt to define our reality or rationalise our place, purpose or even function within such a cosmic or harmonious state of grace with Man's or Mankind's creator/maker.
What is the most basic of such an almost global - can't say universal since such a construct takes us even further afield in search of difinity. A task which is no less daunting than Man's perpetual quest to define his supposed relationship(s) to himself, all of humanity, his domain, as enshrined in the all encompassing environment of Nature and, finally, the maker or creator of it all.
That it took a chance 'indulgence' or sampling of the fruits found on the Tree of Knowledge to condemn all of mankind, the seeds and saplings of such a powerful creator, to eternal ignorance on the basis that ignorance hinders enlightenment or breeds or engenders spiritual bliss or contentment epitomises banality at its finest.
For truly, even the most ignorant must at some point face-up to the reality that the sum total of his ignorance, defined for what it truly amounts to: someone else broke the Law; and, for this transgression, we have all been convicted and condemned through all eternity ( assuming, of course, that you buy into the basic assumption(s).
This, of course, appears to be the very basis on which the reasons ( best guesses derived of all calculable range of possibilities or probabilities, factored and restrained by innumerable variables and constants in all and every humanly attempts to derive or arrive at a definitive answer to the simple question - who created God? ) are generated and offered up for constant consumption. We all know the answer to who created Man - how? And why is the answer to such questions so deeply ingrained within that human makeup?
Peter will always end up paying for Paul ( even if your name is turns out to be John, or Sam or Jane or Judy or Xyz. ) Man apparently has made a big major boo-boo in the creator's eyes and for this he decided to cast out the entire lot as rejects, not even angel material among the lot - if you exclude the particular group of tormentors who were also sent also to bedevil manking for all eternity as well. Not very surprising that they consider their place in cosmic context to be confined to purgatory - bedeviled as much as those they are charged to bedevil or torment. What's hell then, a training ground for emergent devilish angels, future tense?
Is this really what men, women and children are expected to believe or buy into to give their lives meaning and purpose? To live of their lives as some sort of justifiably believable context to the myths which are used to build and sustain what barely amounts to a plausible answer to the question: Who created the creator? Forever questioning and asking at whose beck and call, whims and fancies, who controls the warps and woofs, the fickle hands of fate, time, destiny, pre-destiny - together, all combined or individual forces of god and nature. Why should or does man forever go begging an answer which perpetually leads to further questions which are they themselves based or constructed upon ever increasing piles of assumptions or theories? He exists or he does not. If he does, then be thankful or hopeful that he has a sense of humour, of any type. If he does not, in fact, exist then why waste time and energy worrying about that which does not exist?
Is this what has become of the foundation upon which our very consciousness of being, existence or self is constructed? - It is so or it must be for, besotted, there should exist no punishment when there has been no transgression committed. Conviction or condemnation based on the existence of an offence which precedes awareness of self or consciousness the existence, thus denying any culpable relation to assumption of guilt by association as a justifably punishable offence in essence negates any and all Law or theory which seeks to establish or supersedes all other previously held opinions as to what constitutes Truth. It is on this man had been consigned to eternal damnation by his creator, banished from this paradise.
From this we can only adduce that it's a possible or likely reason to explain this immutable truth about the human condition: Man and mankind may be in a better position if he somehow learns how to not only unlock the gates which have been shielding and serving as protection along the path which leads to the 'tree of knowlege' and negate the need to depend or rely on a creator who has been hanging on to the patent rights to the mould from which humanity evolved. Will man then choose to cease reproducing himself in the 'old fashioned way'?
Is this really the lesson to be taken from 'Man's fall from grace, his banishment forever serving to give birth to The Original Sin and the enduring belief that with that trangression or mis-step Man fell a couple or several notches down the The Great Chain of Being1.
In Eden, or Shangri-La or any other such utopian paradises, Man exist in a State of Grace with God, the creator. A realm of supposedly no centralised political governing authority or defined hierarchy.
However, when man was thrust outside the gates of paradise, all of humanity, allegedly, following along, on finding themselves outside gates of that state of grace which previously governed their lives, apart from a few accompanying bad apples. A new state in which there existed no centralised political authority or defined hierarchy of leadership. God was no longer in direct communication with Man nor a provider and protector of men.
Men now lived and surviced by their wits and pure passions. Anarchy existed as men were forced to provide and protect his person from the uncontrollable elements, creatures and other men. Whereas, Man once enjoyed prolonged longevity and unbroken bliss in paradise he now had to endure pain, suffering and even death in his new world. Where the land was fruitful, bountiful and readily available he had to now learn to till the soil, cultivate and protect his crops and fruits of his labours. The animals, fish and fowls, once sources of pastorial enjoyments, now became either enemies or sources of food, clothing or shelter. Culminating in an evolution against the backdrop memory of what life used to be or is imagined to have been in another time or place.
Needless to say, Man soon became disenchanted with his lot in life. Life became short, brutish and harsh as he lamented the loss perfection and harmony which was once the birthright of mankind. Meaningful communication with God, the creator, remained largely non-existent as Man's cries of repentance and forgiveness went unheeded with each passing day.
This is the view that Thomas Hobbes worked from in The Leviathan2. He saw Man as being constantly in a state of war as he attempted re-open and re-enter through the gates of paradise and back to a State of Grace. According to Hobbes, those goals have and will, forever, remain elusive to mankind as he continues to live by his passions rather than his Reason
In his analysis Hobbes concluded that Man contines to wallow in purgatory because of his inability or reluctance to organise himself. Thus, he proposed the nomination of a leader who would mediate the differences between all men and seek to bring about peace and unity; and to achieve this, he asserted that such a ruler would have to be empowered with absolute authority over all individuals under his jurisdiction. This became the foundation upon which Hobbes believed civil government should be based: absolutism, enshrined in a monarch or Absolute Monarchy.
He recognised and acknowledged that men, while living in the State of Nature, have matural rights and liberties which are protected by the Laws of Nature: 'Justice, Equality, Modesty and Mercy'. This, in sum, involved 'doing unto others as we would be done to, without the terror or fear of some unseen power to cause such behaviour to be adherred to .... '.
This being the case, it must then be asked: if Man is Free, then how would a monarch go about enforcing his rule over 'free men'. That is, how would such a ruler persuade his subjects that such a rule would be in their considered best interests? Apparently, this presented no problems for Hobbes.
He argued that, for men living in a constant state of war, guided by their love of liberty, their own preservation and desire for a more contented life - getting themselves out of the miserable conditions of war, a consequence of them being ruled and guided by their natural passions in the absence of a visible power to keep them in awe and bound by fear of punishment for failing to adhere to their covenants or observation of the laws of nature would compel them to accept or at least consider such a proposal.
Thus, a Monarch, to achieve his objective, would compel them by natural force as when a man makes his children and their children submit themselves to his authority. Another means of achieving his objectives is when " .... men agree among themselves to submit to some man or assembly of men, voluntarily, on the confidence that they will be protected by him against all others." This condition, when achieved, makes the sovereign power "... obliged by the laws of nature to render an account thereof to God, and to none but him". This philosophical point of view was proposed by Hobbes around the middle of the 17th century. Then along came John Locke. He attacked the assumptions upon which Hobbes' concept of Absolute Monarchy were grounded.
In his work, Of Civil Government, Locke also based his treatise on the same premise as Hobbes, stating: " .... all men are naturally in a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possesions as they think fit, within the bounds of the Laws of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other men." The difference, however, is that Locke ascribes and credits man with a lot more reason than Hobbes did. This, in itself, accounts for the philosophical differences between them both.
Locke asserted that while men lived in a state of nature they constantly infringed upon each other's rights and liberties and that they did not consult their reason. This then resulted in the 'wars' as perceived by Hobbes; and as such, he mainted that there is a need for a central authority that would resolve conflicts and maintain peace.
To provide this security and maintain the peace at the same time, Locke believed that men would eventually consult their reason and agree upon some sort of contract among themselves; and that they would then elect a few and give them the authority to govern and look after the vested self-interests of all within the scope of the collective social entity which ensues from any such arrangements. For Locke, this is the manner in which civil societies are formed and he termed it Representative democracy. An also equally important element in his version of civil government was the formation of a judiciary system whereby disputes between individual rights and liberties would be judged and and resolved in a peaceful and civil manner.
As can be seen, Locke's approach to the question as to the basis upon which civil and political rights and liberties are formed and exercised, it's legitimacy, is radically different from that of Hobbes's; in fact, Locke was so well received that his writings were influential in the American Revolution of 1776. It can also be seen that the shift to a democratic governance of society has become the goal of numerous social revolutions over the centuries. Men still strive to return to the perfect state of being.
Around the latter half of the 18th century, Jacques Rousseau in his work, The Social Contract6, came out in strong opposition to representative forms of governance. Rousseau, an idealist, sharply disagreed with the idea of a state in which the people elected representatives who were then empowered with the authority to uphold and protect the self-interests of the individual, while those self-same elected officials were also tasked with looking after the self-interests of the collective group as its primary mandate. In his opinion, the governments of his period were not truly democratic; in fact, he thought them to be quite oppressive. And as such, he argued that in a Lockean type society individuals lose their sovereignty as legislation is decided upon by the majority vote of those with the most vested interests - general wills being subjugated to that of particular wills.
"To renounce one's liberty, he stated, is to renounce one's quality as a man, the rights and duties of humanity. For him who renounces everything there is no possible compensation".
He questioned how an individual can give up his natural rights and liberties and, at the same time, consider himself free: "For what rights would my slave have against me since all that he owns belongs to me? His rights being mine, this right of me against myself is a meaningless phrase
"
And so, Rousseau proposed in his Social Contract the formation of government that would provide individuals with the peace and security that they lacked in nature; at the same time letting them retain and maintain their natural rights and liberties. He states: "To find a form of association which may defend and protect with the force of the community the person and property of every associate, and by means of which each, coalesing with all, may nevertherless only obey himself, and remain as free as before." He strongly believed in the sovereignty of the individual. Collective associations and organisations, embodying social and political wills, were useful only as a means to self-preservation of the individual when he or she chose to make such agreements with the rest of mankind.
"As men cannot create new forces, but only combine and direct those that exist, they have no other means of self-preservation than to form by aggregation a sum of forces which may overcome the resistance .... and to make them work in concert." This aggregation of individuals, working in concert with each other for a 'common good', collective self-interests, then becomes " ....the State when it is passive, Sovereign when active and Power when compared to other bodies."
The people who comprise the state are all expected to participate in the formulation and implementation of policies that would affect their lives. These policies are arrived at after examining the 'particular wills' of each individuals in the community to determine the 'general will' of all who comprise the community; law and government thus become agents of the general or common will, obligating the individual to subject his personal or particular self-interests to the general or common will as dictated and enforced by the agents of the state or community. Government, in essence, is powerless and without voice without a concensus among those who comprise the group, community or body politics.
In my view, in Rousseau's society private self-interests are never acted upon within the body politics unless it also happens to represent the collective self-interests, the general will. The general will, the common good and sovereignty of the individual are all of paramount importance. However, in a Lockean society legislation ( particular wills ) is decided upon entirely by elected representatives. Thus, being representative of the majority of elected voices, each with particular and general vested self-interests as elected representatives, they become the decision makers, lawmakers, the State. Sovereignty shifts away from the individuals as law, order and government becomes embodied in the elected officials, the new agents of the State. For Rousseau, sovereignty resides within the individual; and as such, the state is most representative among the individual members who each have a but a single vote on any and all issues which affects the solvency of the social entity entrenched in the social contract.
Consequently, Rousseau's argument with Locke's revolves around such questions as: where does The State begin and ends. What limits, if any, are there between the power of the State, as a political apparatus, a social construct and those of individuals who come together, agree upon and form a social contract, which relinguishes a certain degree of individual rights, freedoms and sovereignty to the political will for the greater good of the group. In a social setting, whose sovereignty takes precedence: the individual's ( particular wills ) or the State's ( the group's general will )?
Obviously, no government or social structure can be everything to everyone at all times. Thus, Rousseau's theory of government by the people, participatory democracy, is inadequate in that it is near impossible to govern a population of millions, particulary during an emergency which, directly or indirectly, impacts on the particular wills and sovereignty of each individual. Consequently, it would seem that Locke's approach to the formation of government is more practical in itself implementation and execution. This being the case, and since most democracies are representative rather than participatory, the question still remains: how free is an individual in a democratic society?
Towards the middle of the 19th century two authors addressed this question. The first, Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America and John S. Mill, On Liberty.
De Tocqueville' approach to the subject was to study an existing democracy in action, while Mill's took an idealistic approach. However, both, in my opinion, showed that there is not much, if any, purely individual freedoms or sovereignty to be found when one considers that as individuals we are born into society with certain degrees of freedom and limitations set upon or imposed upon the individual right from birth. There is no existing recourse to renounce or opt-out of those existing restrictions and restraints imposed upon the individual from the moment of his birth. By the time the individual is older enough to understand, comprehend and exercise his rights, as defined by the state he has been inculcated into understanding and accepting what constitutes right or wrong, criminal or legal, within the bounds of the social and body politics. Adherring to those notions immediately implies and infers that one accepts the terms and conditions by which one will become an acceptable member of society and the body politics. Mills, like Rousseau, employs different approaches in addressing the subject of sovereignty of the individual; and like De Tocqueville, agree that there need to be safeguards against tyranny of the majority.
Each of these authors in their examination of the basis upon which social are formed and organised based their work on the assumption that man did at one point in time exist in a 'free state of being'. Assuming this to be true, the question then begs to be answered: how could man have 'sinned' in the paradise? The fact that hse was punished for his transgressions and cast out indicates that there was a limitation to the extent of his 'freedom', imposed by God, the creator. Thus, the question that begs is: was Man ever absolutely free? And, what is or how is Freedom defined and measured?
In its application to an individual in a social grouping Mill states:
"It comprises, first, the inward domain of consciousness, demanding liberty of conscience inn the most comprehensive sense, liberty of thought and feeling, absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, .... liberty of expressing and publishing opinions ...., secondly, liberty of tastes and pursuits, of framing the plan of our lives to suit our character, doing as we like ... without impediment from our fellow creatures, so long as we do not harm them, even though they should think out conduct foolish, perverse or wrong"
Are any of these realised and unlimited?
Rousseau, champinion of the individual, states that when an individual enters into a social contract " .... he's deprived of many of the advantages that he derives from nature, he acquires equally great ones in return; his faculties are exercised and developed; his ideas are expanded; his feelings enobled; his whole soul is exaulted to such a degree .... "
But, from De Tocqueville's observations, the opposite is often the truth:
"In the U.S, the majority undertakes to supply a multitude of readymade opinions for the use of the individuals, who are thus relieved from the necessity of forming opinions of their own. Everybody there adopts a great number of theories on philosophies, morals and politics without enquiry upon public trusts; and if we look narrowly, it will be seen that religion herself holds sway there, no lees as a doctrine of revelation than as a commonly received and held opinion". Public opinion and the faith it embodied within its core dictates to the individual in society how to dress, worship, how to conduct one's self in privacy of the home or in th eeys of the public. On political subjects he is free to participate in any of the nation's political parties. But any expressed desire to learn more about, say the communist party or governments, earns him a security file in some computer abnk and a label of being 'radically' bent. A label which can and often will affect such individuals statuses within society as jobs and housing and loans and other situations are denied or rejected because he has a file which classifies him as a 'security risk'
Freedom of " .... pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, mental or spiritual ... ". This principle of Mill's implies that if an executive earning $40,000/year abruptly decided to quit his job and become a beach bum, then no one has the right to force him to return to his job; unless of course, his job is of such vital importance that he cannot be allowed to summarily abjugate his duties and responsibilities without first ensuring that someone is in place to relieve him should he choose to do so. To do otherwise would be to infer that " .... the state has a deep interest in the whole bodily and mental discipline of eacha nd every one of its private citizens .... the only purpose for which such power can be rightly exercised over any member of a civilised community, against the will of the individual, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or mental or moral, is not sufficient warrant."
But a dream such as that is very seldom acted out very often in reality. Firstly, if the person eventually decides to return to the workforce, he'd be required to provide references in support of his work history, character, etc. It's quite doubtful that a favourable reccomendation would be forthcoming from the previous employer; and as such, in the public's eyes, he run's the risk of being characterised as being an 'unstable, unreliable, flaky, etc person. Even among friends and relatives he'd be constantly pressured to becasue he chose to 'get away from it all for a while'. If there are outstanding debts, finance companies and collection agencies will be hounding and nibbing at his heels for repayment or assurances.
The liberty to express one's opinions on any subject, either privately or through a public organ is very much a principle of Mill's. He states: "This liberty extends to all subjects, whether practical, scientific, moral or theological." For him, this also means that freedom of the press as long as the opinion expressed is not deliberately malicious in intent or purpose. He argued for this liberty on the grounds that suppression of any opinion denies the person the opportunity to exchange error for truth: " If wrong, he states, they lose what is almost a great benefit - the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error. But, he continues, "... The peculiar eveil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that robbing it is robbing the human race, posterity as well as existing generation."
De Tocqueville agrees with Mill on the point of liberty of the press; but for a somewhat different reason. He believes that tyranny in a democratic society will never blossom if the press remained free. "The press, he states, is the chieftest democratic instrument of freedom; and as long as the press is free it would be the best security against tyranny of the majority"
.
During the Viet Nam war many men and women objected to the American's government's involvement in the jungles of South East Asia. Some young men demonstrated their disapproval by fleeing the country to avoid being conscripted or drafted and sent to fight a war that they believed was immoral and unjustifiable. When a nation calls upon its citizen's to bear arms to defend their nation against armed aggression it's imcumbent upon all able-bodied member to heed the calls to duty.
However, this argument cannot be applied or used to justify America's prosecution of if the draft dodgers. The nation's national security or sovereignty was at no time at risk by America's involvement in Viet Nam during that war. A war in which America's involvement ws based broadly and simply on a matter of principle: to stem what was perceived as an increase of cummunists influence in that particular region. In other words, it was a war fought solely based on political objectives. The vilification of the draft dogers and other conscientious objectors by the public media was representative of tyranny rearing it ugly head as the media became a tool of the state and was employed to attack those who wished to exercise their liberty of conscience.
Mill states: "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign ... and none is completely free in which they do not exist absolute and unqualified." Meanwhile, De Tocqueville believes that such individuality in society is impossible since the parameters of society are defined by the majority. The power of this majority "... creates opinions, engenders sentiments, suggests the ordinary practices of life and modifies whatever it does not produce".
To which Mill would add:
"I deny the right of the people to exercise such coercion, either by themselves or by their government; the power itself is illegitimate. The best government has no more title to it than the worst. It is noxious, or more noxious, when exerted in accordance with public opinion than when in opposition to it. If all mankind, minus one, were of contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing makind. .... The opinion which it is attempted to suppress may possibly be true. Those who desire to suppress it, of course, deny its truth; but they are not infallible. They have no authority to decide the question for all mankind and exclude every other being from the means of judging".
References:
1 The Great Chain of Being
http://www.teachersfirst.com/lessons/marl-h6.htm
2 Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan
http://www.orst.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-a.html#introduction
3 Alexis de Tocqueville's, Democracy in America,
http://www.conservativebookstore.com/ytocqueville.shtml
4 The philosophies of Locke and Rousseau
http://ctct.essortment.com/lockeandrouss_rqkw.htm
5 THE SOCIAL CONTRACT
http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon.htm
6 John Stewart Mill
http://www.uark.edu/depts/comminfo/freespeech/jsmill.html]
|